Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Screening
- All Subjects: Ambulatory Care Facilities
- All Subjects: Emergency Rooms
- Creators: Thrall, Charlotte
- Creators: Chiffelle, Rochelle
- Member of: Programs and Communities
Description
Declaration of Conflicts: This project has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Context: This project was completed at a federally qualified primary healthcare clinic in Phoenix, Arizona that served patients of all age groups, but primarily cared for the Hispanic population providing primary care, preventative services, family planning, two lab technicians, one promoter, two medical assistant supervisors, five front desk staff, one chief administrative officer, one chief financial officer, two medical directoers who were also providers at the clinic.
Problem and Analysis Assessment: During my clinical rotations, I saw the burden a missed patient appointment had not only on the patients themselves, but also on the clinic, providers, and the staff. It caused delay in treatment for patients, and it did not allow other patients that wanted to be seen to be seen. It also increased unnecessary costs and wasted provider time. Thereafter, I met with some of the leadership team and one of the medical directors to determine a solution to reduce the number of missed appointments that were occurring. An educational session was kept to discuss the findings of this problem to the providers and the staff and when surveys were handed out to the patients, providers, and staff to assess their satisfaction with the old scheduling system versus the new scheduling system, they were also provided with a cover letter discussing the project.
Intervention: In order for improvements in care to occur, a system process change including the way patients are scheduled must occur. In this case, an open-access scheduling system (OAS) was implemented. OAS allows a patient to schedule an appointment on the 'same-day' or the 'next-day' to be seen. One provider at each of the clinics, each day of the week was available for 'same-day' appointments from 1300-1600. The providers were still available for scheduled appointments using the previous scheduling method. Walk-ins were still accepted, and were scheduled based on patient provider preference; however, if an appointment was not available for their preferred provider, they were typically seen with the provider that was the 'same-day' provider for that day.
Strategy for change: Since patients were only allowed to schedule appointments one month in advance, only one month was needed to implement this process change. A recommendation for the future would be to clearly identify the patient encounter type, and label it as a same-day appointment, as this would be helpful when gathering and extracting data for this type of patient group specifically.
Measurement of Improvement: Over a three-month period, a data collection plan was used to determine the number of Mas over a three-month period before and after implementation of this change. Satisfaction scores were measured using likert scales for patients, provider, and staff, and a dichotomous scale was used to determine the likelihood of emergency room or urgent care use. A comparison was done to measure revenue during the same time frame. During the three months, a clinically significant decrease in MAs was seen (<0.52%), with an increase in revenue by 41%. Additionally, a statistically significant increase in patient, provider and staff satisfaction was also noted when compared to the old scheduling system, as >68% of all patients, providers and staff reported feeling either very satisfied or extremely satisfied with the new scheduling system. Additionally, patients also reported that they were less likely to visit an emergency room(88%) or urgent care (90%) since they were able to be seen the same-day or the next-day by a provider.
Effects of changes: An incidental finding occurred during this study - where 877 more patients were seen in the three months during the implementation of this project, compared to the three months prior; which likely resulted in a 41% increase in revenue. Additionally this project, allowed patients that wanted to be seen on the same day, to be seen, and it decreased unnecessary costs associated with emergency room or urgent care visits. Some of the limitations involved included the current political environment, appointment slots that were previously 15 minutes in length (in 2016), increased to 20 minutes in length (in 2017), a language barrier was noted for the patient surveys since English was not the first language for many of the patients who completed the survey (although documents were translated), and the surveys used were not reliable instrument given that a reliable instrument in previous studies could not be found.
Lessons learnt: In order to have accuracy of the survey results, it is best for the author of the study to hand out and provide scripture for the survey so that complete data is received from the surveyors.
Messages for others: Begin by making a small process change where only one provider allows for the open-access scheduling so that the entire office is not affected by it, and if results begin to look promising then it can be expanded. Additionally, correct labeling of patients as 'same-day' is also important so that additional data can be gathered when needed regarding the 'same-day' patients.
Patient/Family/Guardian Involvement: Patients who benefited from the new scheduling system (open-access scheduling) were asked to fill out a survey that asked them to disclose some demographic data and asked them to determine their satisfaction with the new vs old scheduling system and their likelihood of visiting an emergency room or urgent care.
Ethics Approval: Arizona State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Received: September 2017
Context: This project was completed at a federally qualified primary healthcare clinic in Phoenix, Arizona that served patients of all age groups, but primarily cared for the Hispanic population providing primary care, preventative services, family planning, two lab technicians, one promoter, two medical assistant supervisors, five front desk staff, one chief administrative officer, one chief financial officer, two medical directoers who were also providers at the clinic.
Problem and Analysis Assessment: During my clinical rotations, I saw the burden a missed patient appointment had not only on the patients themselves, but also on the clinic, providers, and the staff. It caused delay in treatment for patients, and it did not allow other patients that wanted to be seen to be seen. It also increased unnecessary costs and wasted provider time. Thereafter, I met with some of the leadership team and one of the medical directors to determine a solution to reduce the number of missed appointments that were occurring. An educational session was kept to discuss the findings of this problem to the providers and the staff and when surveys were handed out to the patients, providers, and staff to assess their satisfaction with the old scheduling system versus the new scheduling system, they were also provided with a cover letter discussing the project.
Intervention: In order for improvements in care to occur, a system process change including the way patients are scheduled must occur. In this case, an open-access scheduling system (OAS) was implemented. OAS allows a patient to schedule an appointment on the 'same-day' or the 'next-day' to be seen. One provider at each of the clinics, each day of the week was available for 'same-day' appointments from 1300-1600. The providers were still available for scheduled appointments using the previous scheduling method. Walk-ins were still accepted, and were scheduled based on patient provider preference; however, if an appointment was not available for their preferred provider, they were typically seen with the provider that was the 'same-day' provider for that day.
Strategy for change: Since patients were only allowed to schedule appointments one month in advance, only one month was needed to implement this process change. A recommendation for the future would be to clearly identify the patient encounter type, and label it as a same-day appointment, as this would be helpful when gathering and extracting data for this type of patient group specifically.
Measurement of Improvement: Over a three-month period, a data collection plan was used to determine the number of Mas over a three-month period before and after implementation of this change. Satisfaction scores were measured using likert scales for patients, provider, and staff, and a dichotomous scale was used to determine the likelihood of emergency room or urgent care use. A comparison was done to measure revenue during the same time frame. During the three months, a clinically significant decrease in MAs was seen (<0.52%), with an increase in revenue by 41%. Additionally, a statistically significant increase in patient, provider and staff satisfaction was also noted when compared to the old scheduling system, as >68% of all patients, providers and staff reported feeling either very satisfied or extremely satisfied with the new scheduling system. Additionally, patients also reported that they were less likely to visit an emergency room(88%) or urgent care (90%) since they were able to be seen the same-day or the next-day by a provider.
Effects of changes: An incidental finding occurred during this study - where 877 more patients were seen in the three months during the implementation of this project, compared to the three months prior; which likely resulted in a 41% increase in revenue. Additionally this project, allowed patients that wanted to be seen on the same day, to be seen, and it decreased unnecessary costs associated with emergency room or urgent care visits. Some of the limitations involved included the current political environment, appointment slots that were previously 15 minutes in length (in 2016), increased to 20 minutes in length (in 2017), a language barrier was noted for the patient surveys since English was not the first language for many of the patients who completed the survey (although documents were translated), and the surveys used were not reliable instrument given that a reliable instrument in previous studies could not be found.
Lessons learnt: In order to have accuracy of the survey results, it is best for the author of the study to hand out and provide scripture for the survey so that complete data is received from the surveyors.
Messages for others: Begin by making a small process change where only one provider allows for the open-access scheduling so that the entire office is not affected by it, and if results begin to look promising then it can be expanded. Additionally, correct labeling of patients as 'same-day' is also important so that additional data can be gathered when needed regarding the 'same-day' patients.
Patient/Family/Guardian Involvement: Patients who benefited from the new scheduling system (open-access scheduling) were asked to fill out a survey that asked them to disclose some demographic data and asked them to determine their satisfaction with the new vs old scheduling system and their likelihood of visiting an emergency room or urgent care.
Ethics Approval: Arizona State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Received: September 2017
ContributorsPatel, Dimple (Author) / Thrall, Charlotte (Thesis advisor) / Glover, Johannah-Uriri (Thesis advisor)
Created2018-05-02
Description
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to implement a change in workflow to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and improve Meaningful Use scores in a primary care setting.
Background and Significance: CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women. Current CRC screening rates remain low, even with advanced screening options available. Meaningful Use sets specific objectives for health care providers to achieve. Documenting CRC screening status and recommending CRC screenings to patients is one of the objectives of Meaningful Use and is considered a Clinical Quality Measure (HealthIT.gov). Factors that lead to CRC screening include primary care providers (PCPs) raising the topic, involving support staff, involving patients in the decision-making process, and setting alerts in electronic health records (EHRs).
Methods: The Health Belief Model and Ottawa Model of Research Use helped guide this project. The project took place at a private primary care practice. The focus was on patients between the ages of 50 and 75 years old meeting criteria for CRC. Five PCPS and five medical assistants (MAs) chose to participate in the study. Participants were given pre and post Practice Culture Assessment (PCA) surveys to measure perceptions of the practice culture. The project included a three-part practice change: PCP and MA education about CRC screening guidelines, EHR documentation and reminders, and a change of patient visit workflow which included having MAs review patient's CRC screening status before they were seen by the PCP and handing out CRC screening brochures when appropriate. PCPs then ordered the appropriate CRC screening, and the MA documented the screening in the EHR under a designated location. CRC Screening Project Evaluation Forms were completed by MAs after each patient visit.
Outcomes: No significant difference from pre to post survey satisfaction scores were found (t (8) = - 1.542, p= = .162). Means of quantitative data were reported from the CRC screening evaluation forms; N=91. The most common method of screening chosen was colonoscopy, 87%. A strong correlation was found (r (-.293) = .01, p<.05) between receiving a CRC brochure and choosing a form of screening. Meaningful Use scores pre and post project are pending.
Conclusion: Patients are more likely to choose a screening method when the topic is raised in a primary care setting. Continued staff education on workflow is important to sustain this change. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and sustainability of this practice change.
Background and Significance: CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women. Current CRC screening rates remain low, even with advanced screening options available. Meaningful Use sets specific objectives for health care providers to achieve. Documenting CRC screening status and recommending CRC screenings to patients is one of the objectives of Meaningful Use and is considered a Clinical Quality Measure (HealthIT.gov). Factors that lead to CRC screening include primary care providers (PCPs) raising the topic, involving support staff, involving patients in the decision-making process, and setting alerts in electronic health records (EHRs).
Methods: The Health Belief Model and Ottawa Model of Research Use helped guide this project. The project took place at a private primary care practice. The focus was on patients between the ages of 50 and 75 years old meeting criteria for CRC. Five PCPS and five medical assistants (MAs) chose to participate in the study. Participants were given pre and post Practice Culture Assessment (PCA) surveys to measure perceptions of the practice culture. The project included a three-part practice change: PCP and MA education about CRC screening guidelines, EHR documentation and reminders, and a change of patient visit workflow which included having MAs review patient's CRC screening status before they were seen by the PCP and handing out CRC screening brochures when appropriate. PCPs then ordered the appropriate CRC screening, and the MA documented the screening in the EHR under a designated location. CRC Screening Project Evaluation Forms were completed by MAs after each patient visit.
Outcomes: No significant difference from pre to post survey satisfaction scores were found (t (8) = - 1.542, p= = .162). Means of quantitative data were reported from the CRC screening evaluation forms; N=91. The most common method of screening chosen was colonoscopy, 87%. A strong correlation was found (r (-.293) = .01, p<.05) between receiving a CRC brochure and choosing a form of screening. Meaningful Use scores pre and post project are pending.
Conclusion: Patients are more likely to choose a screening method when the topic is raised in a primary care setting. Continued staff education on workflow is important to sustain this change. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and sustainability of this practice change.
ContributorsMcKillop, Ashley (Author) / Chiffelle, Rochelle (Thesis advisor)
Created2018-05-05
Description
Capturing and presenting high-quality data can be challenging for free clinics due to lack of resources and technology avoidance. If free clinics are unable to present impactful data to current and potential donors, this may limit funding and restrict care provided to underserved and vulnerable populations. The following is a quality improvement project which addresses utilization of information systems within a free clinic. For one month, volunteer providers completed appointment summary forms for each patient seen in the clinic. Electronic form submissions (E=110) were compared to paper form submissions (P=196), with quality of data determined by form completeness scores. Welch’s t-test was used to determine statistical significance between electronic and paper form completeness scores (E=9.7, P=8.5) (p < .001). Findings suggest that utilization of electronic data collection tools within a free clinic produce more complete and accurate data. Barriers associated with technology utilization in this under-resourced environment were substantial. Findings related to overcoming some of these barriers may be useful for future exploration of health information technology utilization in under-resourced and technology avoidant settings. Results warrant future investigation of the relationship between quality of free clinic data, information management systems, provider willingness to utilize technology and funding opportunities in free clinics.
ContributorsCorcoran, Abigail T. (Author) / Thrall, Charlotte (Thesis advisor) / Arizona State University. College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation (Contributor)
Created2021-04-24
Description
Homeless individuals encounter barriers such as lack of health insurance, increased cost of care and unavailability of resources. They have increased risk of comorbid physical disease and poor mental health. Depression is a prevalent mental health disorder in the US linked to increased risk of mortality. Literature suggests depression screening can identify high-risk individuals with using the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9).
The objective of this project is to determine if screening identifies depression in the homeless and how it impacts healthcare access. Setting is a local organization in Phoenix offering shelter to homeless individuals. An evidence-based project was implemented over two months in 2019 using convenience sampling. Intervention included depression screening using the PHQ-9, referring to primary care and tracking appointment times. IRB approval obtained from Arizona State University, privacy discussed, and consent obtained prior to data collection. Participants were assigned a random number to protect privacy.
A chart audit tool was used to obtain sociodemographics and insurance status. Descriptive statistics used and analyzed using Intellectus. Sample size was (n = 18), age (M = 35) most were White-non-Hispanic, 44% had a high school diploma and 78% were insured. Mean score was 7.72, three were previously diagnosed and not referred. Three were referred with a turnaround appointment time of one, two and seven days respectively. No significant correlation found between age and depression severity. A significant correlation found between previous diagnosis and depression severity. Attention to PHQ-9 varied among providers and not always addressed. Future projects should focus on improving collaboration between this facility and providers, increasing screening and ensuring adequate follow up and treatment.
ContributorsParamo, Cinthia Arredondo (Author) / Thrall, Charlotte (Thesis advisor)
Created2020-05-04